Alternative view of segmented documents via Kairos

11 December 2017 | Draft

Symbolic Relocation of United Nations HQ to Jerusalem Vicinity

Revitalization of Middle East peace process enabled by US-Israel initiative
-- / --

Introduction
Moving the UN in the light of a US perspective
Arguments for movement to other locations
Arguments based on moving the UN HQ to the Baghdad Green Zone
Earlier proposals for relocation
Moving the United Nations into cyberspace and into virtual reality

Revisiting an argument variously presented previously (Merits of Moving the UN HQ to Baghdad, April 2003;
Build the Wall -- Move the UN HQ? United Nations principles are not consistent with "America First", January 2017).
Aspects of the argument have subsequently been further developed (Jerusalem as a Symbolic Singularity, 2017).

Introduction
The recently elected President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, has made the historic decision to move the US Embassy
in Israel to Jerusalem. This highly controversial initiative offers an unprecedented opportunity to reframe the Middle East peace process
and the highly problematic relations between Israel and Palestine, originally engendered by the United Nations in envisaging its own
administration of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum. These relations have a particular focus in the symbolic status of Jerusalem for the
Abrahamic religions. Provision for such a relocation had originally been made by the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed by the 104th
Congress of the US (23 October 1995).
The controversial implications of the Judeo-Christian recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel -- highly contested by those of
Muslim faith around the world -- can be fruitfully reframed by a counter-intuitive balancing strategy with its own symbolic significance.
It is of course impractical to move the United Nations Headquarters to Jerusalem itself. The spatial, political and logistic issues are
already far too complex.
It is however possible to move the UN Secretariat to a location in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem -- effectively to a "suburb" on
its periphery in the West Bank, or even in Jordan -- enabling various access corridors consistent with the geopolitical situation. Much of
that area is now under Israeli control, or else under joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority control -- with the final status yet to be determined
by the parties concerned. Although seemingly with their own challenges, any such location would have particular advantages as variously
perceived by Israelis, Palestinians or Jordanians -- whether or not these perceptions are in contradiction with one another. For the
Abrahamic religions, for example, it is through the promise of the land to Abraham that "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed"
(Genesis 22:18). Given the symbolic role claimed for Jerusalem, the association of such a relocation of the UN with "Next year in
Jerusalem" (L'Shana Haba'ah) is consistent with a common theme in Jewish culture -- the desire to return to a rebuilt Jerusalem.
In contrast with the rapidly escalating security and logistical challenges of reaching the UN via New York airports, the new Amman
Airport has been recognized by the Airport Council as the best airport in the Middle East. The distance between Jerusalem and Amman is
only 72 km. The proposed location of the UN HQ could well be closer to the centre of Jerusalem than will prove to be feasible for the
relocation of the US Embassy to "Jerusalem". Monorail links could be readily envisaged in order to reframe territorial issues.
For the United Nations, as a symbol of world peace, where does the UN HQ need to be? Where does it need not to be? Where does
it need to be in the light of what it stands for -- now and in the future? Can the UN afford to be perceived as a "back-seat driver" when
the challenges are elsewhere? Is the UN Security Council to be seen as cultivating the legitimacy and resolution of drone pilots
courageously directing their social transformation projects from afar -- irrespective of any collateral damage?
In the earlier argument, made prior to the full implications of the UN-sanctioned intervention in Iraq, it was speculatively suggested that
the HQ of the UN should be moved to the Green Zone in Baghdad (Merits of Moving the UN HQ to Baghdad (April 2003). With minor
amendments, the text of that argument has been included below, since many of the associated points remain of relevance.
It has been alleged that the United Nations could be asked to move its headquarters out of New York within two years if the new
Republican-dominated Congress has its way (Masood Haider, US Congress bill proposes relocation of UN HQ, Dawn, 25 January 2017).
Where might the UN HQ be more appropriately located -- given that the Green Zone argument is no longer relevant? Should it be
reintegrated with the HQ of its predecessor in Geneva -- the Palace of Nations of the League of Nations? This has served as the home of
the United Nations Office at Geneva since 1946. The UN continues to hold meetings there and has a range of secretariat functions there.
In 2012 alone, the Palace of Nations hosted more than 10,000 intergovernmental meetings. However the UN may also choose to move
from there (Aliyah Esmail, The UN in Geneva: will they stay or will they go? Devex, 25 August 2015).
A number of advantages of relocating the UN HQ are noted below. Beyond the symbolic advantage, matching the Judeo-Christian
recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, is the particular advantage of the location on the outskirts of Jerusalem given the
relatively soluble logistic and political issues. Insights have been provided by experience in other divided cities. The fact that a proportion
of the personnel of the UN Regional HQ in Geneva travel daily from France is an indication of possibilities.
Especially interesting would be exploring feasibility for those living in Israel, Jordan or Palestine in travelling to offices located in the
West Bank or Jordan -- however close to Jerusalem proves feasible. There is even the symbolically significant possibility of locating UN
offices on a contested border with entrances from several sides. Located where the Swiss, French and German borders meet, the city of
Basel also has suburbs in France and Germany. The organization of the central railway station addresses a number of issues relevant to
3-way travel and border control.
Whilst any suggestion to move the UN HQ is in many respects "outrageous", it should not be forgotten that the current period is one of
outrage -- whether as articulated by Donald Trump, by those who oppose him. Similar concerns have been articulated by the Occupy
Movement -- as an international sociopolitical movement against social inequality and lack of "real democracy" around the world, with the
primary goal being to advance social and economic justice and new forms of democracy. Its preoccupations were remarkably framed by
Stéphane Hessel (Time for Outrage! 2010).
It could be said that Donald Trump has succeeded to date through being "outrageous" -- as with the proposal to recognize Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel . The Occupy Movement could be accused of "not being outrageous enough" -- as with the massive "movement of
resistance" in opposition to the policies he has articulated. Ironically the US Ambassador to the UN declared during an emergency
meeting of the Security Council following the decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem that that organization "has outrageously
been one of the world's foremost centres of hostility towards Israel" (Jerusalem: Trump's envoy Haley berates 'outrageous UN hostility',
BBC News, 8 December 2017). Moving the UN could be one example of appropriate initiatives in response to those in process of
implementation by the USA. Others could be considered, as discussed separately (Responding outrageously to the outrageous, 2017).
In terms of political credibility, those critical of the current US proposal to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel are likely to favour
relocation of the UN to its immediate neighbourhood -- despite having been previously indifferent to any such move at all.

Moving the UN in the light of a US perspective

For the USA, promotion of the shift of the UN HQ out of New York would be consistent with the increasing criticism of the UN within
the USA -- and notably by Donald Trump, as elected president. As variously indicated, the UN is no longer considered to be fit for the
purpose for which it was conceived, especially when constrained by the consequences of the disaffection of one of the Permanent
Members of its Security Council. Funding has already been cut and further cuts are expected. A similar case can be made for relocation
of UN-related agencies, notably those based in Washington DC (World Bank, IMF, etc) and of other UN agencies increasingly
constrained by US budgetary policies and disaffection (Li Yan, Experts think IMF headquarters' relocation to China likely, People's
Daily Online, 27 July 2017; Ian Williams, United Nations Report: UNRWA moving its Headquarters to Gaza).
Member states who continue to believe in the role of the UN are increasingly irritated by the progressive disassociation of the USA from
international initiatives -- despite cultivating the elusive "international community" as its implied extension (International Community as
God or Sorcerer's Apprentice? 2015).
It should not be forgotten that the USA has a pattern of avoidance of collective responsibility for the adequate implementation of UN-
sponsored treaties (List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States). Most recently, these include: Paris Agreement (2017);
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (2011); Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008); Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (2007); International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006); Optional Protocol to
the Convention against Torture (2002); Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (1999); Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court (1998); Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996).
The possibility of cutting back funding of the UN and other multilateral agencies is currently under consideration (New whistleblower
policy could give move to defund the UN a boost, Fox News, 6 January 2017; Republicans make a move on U.N. funding, SperoNews, 6
January 2017; Concerned About Anti-Israel Bias, Republicans Introduce Another Bill Targeting U.N. Funding, CNSNews, 19 January
2017; Donald Trump's new Congress looks to STOP funding UN in 'herculean' leap, eHeadlines, 6 January 2017; New Bill seeks to end
US membership of the United Nations, relocation of UN headquarters, News Express, 23 January 2017). This extends to proposals to
withdraw from membership of the UN (Trump's Plan to Kill UN Begins with Withdrawal Bill, Veterans Today, 23 January 2017; Will
the US leave the United Nations? New Statesman, 26 January 2017).
The security issues associated with travel to those bodies in the US are increasingly problematic, especially for those without diplomatic
passports recognized by US border control authorities. This is especially the case with regard to representatives of international
nongovernmental organizations. Various efforts have been made by the President of the United States to restrict travel from certain
Muslim countries to the USA -- increasingly extended to those sympathetic with policies critical of those of the US. Irrespective of how
such restrictions may be applicable to diplomats and UN personnel from those countries, the question is how appropriate it is for the
Headquarters of the United Nations to continue to be located in New York. Such issues would be framed quite otherwise were the UN
HQ to be located in Jordan.
Much has also been made of the absolute necessity of construction of a wall along the border between the USA and Mexico. With the
new policy position being taken by the USA, it can now be asked whether the strongly made declaration of "America First" is consistent
with the continued location of the UN HQ in New York. It is appropriate to recall that "America First", was a slogan used by President
Woodrow Wilson during the United States presidential election, 1916. The possibility of reorienting the UN to better reflect the interests
of the USA has been raised (Time to Get the U.N. Back in Line With U.S. Interests, Restore American Glory, 5 January 2017). These
factors merit recognition as strategically fundamental to the intensifying degree of collaboration between the USA and Israel -- with the
latter also deeply committed to maintaining a defensive wall separating it from any Palestinian encroachment.

Arguments for movement to other locations

In addition to its clarification of the nature status of the UN Headquarters in New York. Wikipedia offers an extensively referenced
summary of UN relocation proposals. This notes that due to the significance of the organization, proposals have occasionally been
discussed to relocate its headquarters. Complaints about its current location include diplomats who find it difficult to obtain visas from
the United States and local residents complaining of inconveniences whenever the surrounding roads are closed due to visiting dignitaries
as well as the high costs to the city. A telephone survey in 2001 found that 67% of respondents favor moving the United Nations
headquarters out of the country.
Countries critical to the USA, such as Iran and Russia, are especially important in questioning the current location of the United Nations.
Arguing that the United States government could manipulate the work of the General Assembly through selective access to politicians
from other countries, with the aim of having an advantage over rival countries. Due to accusations of espionage by the USA, the subject
of the relocation of the UN headquarters has been discussed for security reasons (Morales says UN headquarters must move from 'bully'
US, Inside Costa Rica. 26 September 2013; Alleged Breach of UN Treaty Obligations by US, 2010).
Various recent summaries of the issue have been made:
United Nations Headquarters - Relocation Proposals (Liquisearch)
Please Remind Us: Why Keep the UN in New York? (The Rosett Report: Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 20 September
2011)
Bernie Quigley: Should we move the UN? (The Hill, 6 July 2016)
Joshua Keating: Why Is the United Nations in New York Anyway? (Slate, 23 September 2013)
Katrin Park: New York and the United Nations: Time for a divorce? (Daily News, 23 September 2013)
Among the cities that have been proposed to house the headquarters of the United Nations are:
Middle East:
Jerusalem:
United Nations territory and headquarters in Jerusalem? (Big Think, 2016)
Better Yet, Move the United Nations to Jerusalem (The New York Times, 24 April 2005)
Relocate United Nations to Jerusalem to harmonize civilizations (Paktika, 15 January 2008)
The UN can bring peace to Jerusalem by moving its headquarters there (Mondoweiss, 3 November 2014)
A Modest Proposal: Move the UN from NY to Jerusalem (Writersreps)
Jerusalem, District of Peace; Home of The United Nations (Medium, 27 March 2016)
Transfer United Nations HQ to Jerusalem (EndTime Ministries, 1 September 2003)
Chavez Stirs Things Up at the U.N. [proposal to move the UN to Jerusalem] (The Washington Post, 17 September
2005)
French Philosopher: Move UN To Jerusalem (Daily Caller, 17 November 2014)
Dubai:
UN Is Invited to Relocate to Dubai, Government Says (Bloomberg News, 14 January 2010)
Move The U.N. To Dubai (Forbes, 12 January 2010)
Debt-laden Dubai offers to host U.N. headquarters (Reuters, 15 January 2010)
Babylon:
Move United Nations to Iraq (FulfilledProphecy, 2004)
The Most Important City in Iraq: thc world (Koinonia House, June 2004)
Move the UN to Babylon? (GracethruFaith, 11 November 2007)
Is the United Nations Moving from New York City to Babylon, Iraq (Bond Ladys Corner, 11 April 2012)
Iraq: Want Middle East Stability? Move UN to Iraq (Washington Post, 3 August 2009)
Istanbul: UN Representative Calls For Establishing A 'World Capital' -- in Islamic Istanbul (CNSNews, 2| November 2012)
Africa:
Nairobi: New York and the United Nations: time for a divorce (New York Daily News, 23 September 2013)
Kigali: Move The U.N. To Kigali (New Republic, 27 September 2007)
Americas:
Haiti: Move U.N. headquarters from New York to Haiti? (Orlando Sentinel, 21 July 2017)
Montreal: Will the UN move to Montreal - and how will it affect the waterfront? (Spacing Montreal, 25 October 2007)
Toronto: Dumping the UN on Toronto (Canada Free Press, 11 August 2003)
Asia:
 Bangkok: Tracking Global Feng Shui: Move the UN HQ from New York to Bangkok (Travel Impact Newswire, 2 October
2005)
Bangladesh: If the United Nations Organisation was to be moved from New York, where would it be better relocated?
(Quora, 12 March 2016)
Europe:
Gibraltar: Move the UN to Gibraltar -- where it might have a better chance of doing good (City of Words, 28 July 1997)
Iceland: Move the UN to Iceland, says presidential candidate (Iceland Monitor, 26 January 2016)
Saint Petersburg: Russia may call for moving U.N. from New York to St Petersburg (Johnson's Russia List, 14 May 2001;
Headquarters of the United Nations, IPFS, 2001).
Critics of the relocation say that the idea, while not unfeasible, would be expensive and useless and would also involve the withdrawal of
the United States from the organization, and with it much of the agency's funding. Likewise, they affirm that the proposals have never
gone from being mere declarations. Is the same to be said of the declaration of the Islamic Summit of the Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation (Muslim nations urge recognition of East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital, BBC, 13 December 2017; East Jerusalem
capital of Palestine, OIC states declare at Istanbul summit, Daily Sabah, 13 December 2017; Why the Istanbul Declaration Must
Succeed: "The Whole World to Recognize East Jerusalem as the Occupied Capital of Palestine", Global Research, 18 December 2017).
Would establishing multiple embassies there increase the credibility of relocating the United Nations to that vicinity? Will those nations
dismayed at the destabilizing consequences of the US decision now prove to be sympathetic to such a move? Now that the proposed
embassy move has been rejected by all the members of the UN Security Council (with the exception of the US), will the USA be even
more inclined to seek the relocation of the UN HQ?
Arguments have been advanced that a move is required to a more neutral country:
'NYC far and expensive': Russian MP says UN headquarters must be moved from America (RT, 21 Oct, 2015)
Move UN HQ to neutral country, says Russian MP (RT, 31 August 2015)
Should we move the UN? (The Hill, 7 June 2016)
Kazakhstan Wants to Move the UN to Asia (The Diplomat, 29 September 2015)
Clearly discussion of any move to a Middle Eastern location has become increasingly credible in the light of the new executive order of
Donald Trump banning the travel of people to the USA from a select list of Muslim countries -- and preceding the decision to move the
US Embassy to Jerusalem. Relocating UN HQ could be explored in the light of the merits of counter-intuitive strategies cultivated in the
eastern martial arts. In that light how would any move to North Korea reframe the build up in tension on that peninsula?
An argument which could appeal to Trump has been provocatively made (Krauthammer Says Trump Should Turn UN Into Condos With
His Name On It, The Political Insider, 27 December 2016). This follows an earlier argument in that regard (Developer Wants U.N. for
His Proposed Tower, The New York Times, 6 March 2008). There is even the strange prospect of the site being purchased from the
current owner by Trump business interests.
Another possibility is to make use of the facilities of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, as a means of resolving the highly
controversial waste of resources in holding its assemblies in Brussels and Strasbourg alternatively. Should the UN HQ be located in
another region entirely? Or should consideration be given to the more outrageous possibility of using a cruise ship or an aircraft carrier --
with the flexibility which either would imply? How could any decision be reframed by the delocalization of offices enabled by electronic
communications? Should the primary HQ be in the closest proximity to Jerusalem with only a secondary facility maintained in New
York?

Arguments based on moving the UN HQ to the Baghdad Green Zone

The following argument is reproduced from Merits of Moving the UN HQ to Baghdad (April 2003).
A very strong case has been made by Simon Jenkins to Keep the UN well away from Iraq - for now (The Times, 9 April 2003). That
argument focuses on immediate humanitarian intervention and nation-building programmes. There is however a medium-term
argument with respect to the relocation of the UN Secretariat itself -- an operation that extends far beyond the time horizon addressed by
Simon Jenkins and is relevant to current issues of renovating the existing UN Secretariat building already constrained for space.
The following points would appear to strongly justify active planning for such a move to Baghdad at this time:
It would constitute a concrete manifestation of the vital role that the UN could in future perform in relation to the Iraqi economy,
if only through the external resources associated with maintaining the Secretariat and the benefits to the local economy from
visiting delegates

In a time of great stress, suspicion and uncertainty, it would constitute a visible manifestation of the concrete commitment to the
challenges of the Middle East and the regional peace process

It would shift the centre of gravity of the international community from the North and help to provide a bridging function to the
impoverished populations of Africa and Asia

For the most representative body of "We the Peoples...", Baghdad and the Tigris-Euphrates region is a natural symbolic location,
embodying a deep cultural heritage as the cradle of human civilization
 It would help focus the reconstruction of Iraq and prevent the conflict from becoming a long-lasting symbol of the failures of the
international community and the UN itself

It would creatively position the UN in relation to nation-building in the post-Saddam era in Iraq and offer a stabilizing focus for the
Middle East

It would provide a catalytic role for new thinking in the Arab world

It would reduce the infrastructure costs of a UN administration already faced with budgetary challenges at its current location in
New York

The many costly public buildings and complexes constructed by the Saddam regime in Baghdad should offer many possibilities
for a UN Secretariat, which might even benefit significantly from a lateral rather than vertical disposition of offices, especially
when interspersed by gardens; their use by the UN would help to justify the resources devoted to such sumptuous buildings

It would shift the UN from a country whose government has publicly expressed little regard for it, and has no need of it, to a
region where its potential can be more effectively explored through other cultural frameworks

The possibilities of participation in UN processes from the South, and from transition countries, would be increased by the shift in
geographic location, which would also reduce the travel expenses for many

It would require the UN to adopt a more networked organizational style, more in keeping with the requirements of the 21st
century

It would constitute a real challenge to those Secretariat personnel who may have become overly habituated to the comforts of the
Manhattan setting and a "developed-world" mindset

It would increase the representativity at UN meetings, notably of civil society bodies from the South, especially by reducing the air
travel security constraints requiring invasive body searching of suspects on entry to the USA

It would reduce the strain on the security systems of the USA currently faced with the challenge of so many dubious visitors
from countries acknowledged to be hotbeds of terrorist sympathizers

It would offer a construction opportunity to multinational corporations desiring to contribute prestigiously to participation in the
Iraqi nation-building process, and perhaps frustrated by the priority given to contractors from countries more closely associated
with the USA

At a time when the reputation and role of the UN is being called into question, such a move would position the UN more centrally
and visibly in relation to the challenges of a developing world that still looks to it for hope

It would reduce the security threat to UN delegates and personnel, given the authoritative indications of US intelligence agencies,
that the USA (and New York in particular) is under increasing threat of terrorist attack

The Secretariat building is in need of major renovation and is severely constrained for space, notably to house civil society bodies
(see below). It is also a major cause of traffic problems in New York City. The UN's Capital Master Plan could usefully envisage
construction of a new complex in Baghdad rather than having to envisage alternative space whilst renovation takes place.

Earlier proposals for relocation

Earlier proposals have been most recently brought to a focus by the state of the UN Secretariat building and the traffic issues that the
presence of that building creates in Manhattan. Other proposals have been put forward as a result of the negligence of the USA with
respect to its membership arrears. Clearly there are wider concerns with respect to the questionable degree of association with the USA
as it takes on its role of sole superpower and sets aside major international treaty provisions that the UN has struggled so hard to
articulate.
Recent items relating to such proposals include:
2002: Under the co-chairmanship of Lawrence C. Moss, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York produced an excellent,
multi-facetted and well-documented report discussing the challenges of the UN Secretariat building in relation to the UN's Capital
Master Plan (New York City and the United Nations: Towards a Renewed Relationship: A Report by the Special Committee on the
United Nations of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York). The report notes:
A team of architects and engineers thoroughly examined the condition of the UN headquarters complex in 1998-99. The study
concluded that despite the high quality of the original construction, many building elements had deteriorated due to age, or do not
meet current standards for safety and energy efficiency. The study concluded "the current condition of the Headquarters complex
renders it unacceptable for continued use over the long term."
The Secretariat further considered demolishing and rebuilding the headquarters complex. Using the present site, this would cost
 several hundred million dollars more than renovation, and would be highly disruptive to the UN. Reconstruction of the UN on
Governor's Island has also been suggested, bringing considerable security and traffic advantages,
In summary, the UN General Assembly is likely to choose, and the City should support, a plan for the UN to thoroughly renovate
its present headquarters complex over a number of years. The primary consequences for the City will be the need to
accommodate the UN's need for "swing space" to relocate meetings and staff during renovation work, to make improvements to
nearby roads, and to assist with financing the renovation.
One space need not considered by the UN's Capital Master Plan is for additional office space to house nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs). Consultative status for NGO's is provided for in Article 71 of the United Nations Charter, and the number
of accredited NGOs has steadily increased. Currently there are 2091 NGOs in consultative status with the Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC), some 400 NGOs accredited to the Commission on Sustainable Development, a subsidiary body of ECOSOC,
and 1,672 NGO's are registered with the UN Department of Public Information. [55] The City may want to encourage the growth
of NGO's, both for economic development purposes, and to enrich the processes of the UN, and a new facility would help. A
building constructed by UNDC as swing space for the UN during renovation might later be leased to NGO's. Another imaginative
idea to explore is construction of a new conference hall for meetings and conferences during renovation of the UN headquarters,
and later using the space as a cultural venue and/or as a location for the fall general debate if the new location affords easier high-
security access for Heads of State. [more]
2001: St Petersburg: Dmitrii Rogozin, the chairman of the Duma International Relations Committee, told Interfax on 14 May that
Moscow may propose moving the headquarters of the United Nations from New York to St. Petersburg because of America's failure to
pay its dues. "If the position of the Americans does not change and if as a result the international civil servants working in New York feel
ever more uncomfortable, I think we will raise the question of moving the central UN headquarters to the 'Venice of the North,' St.
Petersburg," Rogozin said. [more]
2001: A US telephone poll concluded that 67% of callers were in favour of moving the UN out of the USA.
1997: Continuing friction between the United Nations and New York City has focused on the issue of parking. Tough enforcement
programmes in relation to the many abuses of diplomatic privilege over parking resulted in one French legal expert recommending that
the Secretariat be moved out of New York.

Moving the United Nations into cyberspace and into virtual reality
There is a case for recognizing the opportunities offered by augmented reality and virtual reality now that widespread release of virtual
reality headsets and smartglasses is expected within a year or so, if not in the coming months. The technology is predicted to develop
very rapidly thereafter and will naturally be integrated into the so-called internet of things (Blake J. Harris, How the United Nations is
using Virtual Reality to tackle Real-World Problems, Fast Company, December 2015)
Denial of the relevance of cyberspace? Consideration of any movement of the HQ of the UN to another physical location on the globe
may now be seen as a denial of the global nature of that organization -- given the remarkable developments in information technology
fundamental to a knowledge-based civilization.
There is clearly a case for a new approach to the issues of physical location in relation to the issues of physical access -- especially in the
light of controversial issues of travel bans, visas, security, and the associated costs. In addition to those considerations there is a strong
case for a review of the efficiencies and inefficiencies of assembly for both statutory purposes and for debate on substantive issues --
especially those relating to communication between representatives of large numbers of countries. At what stage do the inefficiencies
outweigh the value of such events -- as is frequently asked with respect to UN and other "summits"?
Necessity of face-to-face interaction? Of further concern are the highly sensitive issues associated with protocol, precedence and
status, and the value variously attached to face-to-face contact -- especially by some cultures and as an essential feature of diplomacy.
These issues are compounded by those of participation by those recognized as observers, of non-UN bodies, or by representatives of
civil society bodies (or their exclusion). The situation and the possibilities have been extensively reframed by the role of social media in
bypassing procedures previously required by the United Nations.
Reform of the UN reframed by developments in information technology: Clearly there is a case for exploring the feasibility of
relocating many UN functions into cyberspace, since many already depend to a high degree on internet communication and web
conferencing, notably as a means of reducing the cost of access and increasing the feasibility of participation of remote parties. It is far
from clear how assiduously such possibilities have been explored in relation to the decades-long, fruitless debate on reform of the United
Nations (General Analysis on UN Reform: key documents, articles, Global Policy Forum; Security Council Reform, Center for UN
Reform Education; The United States Doesn't Want to Reform the U.N. Security Council, Foreign Policy, 29 September 2015).
Over that period the use of information technology within meetings, including statutory meetings, has increased to the point at which it
would be unusual for participants not to be making use of such facilities -- if only for voting.
With respect to the problematic issue of statutory meetings, many aspects were previously highlighted (The Challenge of Cyber-
Parliaments and Statutory Virtual Assemblies, 1998). Curiously the central issue relates to the perceived need for physical co-presence,
however this is rationalized. The question is how to balance that need -- to see and be seen -- against the highly problematic inefficiencies
of such gatherings in an increasingly problematic sociopolitical environment.
Clearly the technology enabling virtual gatherings in cyberspace has developed considerably over the past decade with respect to:
virtual worlds, most notably as massively multiplayer online world (MMOW), namely as computer-based simulated environment
populated by many users variously able to develop it individually or collectively
 command centres and situation rooms, most notably to centralize communications for complex strategic decision-making
(especially for military purposes as "war rooms")
web conferencing (as mentioned above), most notably as web casting and webinars.
immersive virtual reality, and its increasingly widespread availability
transformation from text-based (and spreadsheet) social and knowledge organization to forms increasingly oriented to visual
effects and sonification
Transformation: The last of these suggests that "reform" of the UN might be better explored as a "transformation" with implications for
variable geometry involving alternation between a variety of variously comprehensible forms. Indications of possibilities include:
Alternation between Variable Geometries: a brokership style for the United Nations as a guarantee of its requisite variety (1985)
A Singable Earth Charter, EU Constitution or Global Ethic? (2006)
Spherical Accounting: using geometry to embody developmental integrity (2004)
Towards Polyhedral Global Governance: complexifying oversimplistic strategic metaphors (2008)
Dynamic Transformation of Static Reporting of Global Processes: suggestions for process-oriented titles of global issue reports
(2013)
However these are enabled in cyberspace and virtual reality, they constitute a transition from the planar thinking associated with
architecture on 2D real estate to an embodiment of multidimensionality consistent with global thinking, as may be variously argued
(Irresponsible Dependence on a Flat Earth Mentality -- in response to global governance challenges, 2008; Adhering to God's Plan in a
Global Society, 2014). Arguably it is such a transformation which would enable the UN to engage meaningfully and comprehensibly with
the complexities and paradoxes of increasing surreality epitomized by the strategic changes heralded by Donald Trump.
Key issues: Given such developments, the questions are:
which UN functions could be more appropriately relocated to cyberspace, in order to be more fruitfully enabled in that
environment
how any need for face-to-face plenary assembly by UN bodies could be considered on an ad hoc basis, given the extensive
conference environments in cities around the world. Use of multiple locations could address criticism of bias relating to assembly
at a single location (as at present with respect to New York).
how UN plenary communications could achieve wider appreciation through web casting
how UN secretariat functions could be appropriately dispersed, given the possibility of using multiple locations for distinctive
purposes, however communications between them are enabled and integrated by internet communications and web conferencing
Lack of critical self-reference: In considering such possibilities, it is appropriate to note how they are neglected in relation to the
active involvement of the UN in discussions of cybersecurity (most notably under pressure from the USA):
The UN, Cyberspace and International Peace and Security (UNIDIR, 5 October 2016)
Cyber Security and the Coming Failure of the UN's Group of Governmental Experts (Relations International: global politics,
security, 31 August 2016)
The UN and Cyberspace Governance (Observer Research Foundation, 1 February 2014)
U.S. makes new push for global rules in cyberspace (Politico, 5 May 2015)
U.N. body agrees to U.S. norms in cyberspace (Politico, 7 September 2015)
The 2015 GGE Report: What Next for Norms in Cyberspace? (Lawfare, 23 September 2015)
The United Nations and Cyberwarfare (Global Risk Advisors, 28 September 2016)
There would seem to be an extensive effort to apply modalities of the past to cyberspace governance, without considering how global
governance might itself be informed by the technologies in question (Vigorous Application of Derivative Thinking to Derivative
Problems, 2013). Such failure may be central to the process whereby the UN renders itself irrelevant to the future. Other possibilities are
implied by such as:
UN chief takes to cyberspace for global conversation with public (UN News Center, 13 September 2011)
How Cyberspace Is at the Leading Edge of Global Change: what can cyberspace teach us about managing the world's political
crises? (The Diplomat, 25 February 2016)
The United Nations -- ripe for reform under Antonio Guterres (Euronews, 13 October 2016)
Net Politics: can UN peacekeeping enter the Digital Age? (Council on Foreign Relations, 2 July 2015)
Law of War 2.0: Cyberwar and the Limits of the UN Charter (Global Policy, 4 October 2011)
Jan-Frederik Kremer and Benedikt Müller: Cyberspace and International Relations: theory, prospects and challenges (Springer,
2013)
The latter notes:

That politics have been moved from closed rooms and assemblies to social media is a challenge not just for states but also for the
UN and other multilateral organizations (p. 155)

By contrast no mention is made of the enabling possibilities of cyberspace for the UN in the argument of Jeffrey Sachs (3 reforms the
UN needs as it turns 70, World Economic Forum, 24 August 2015).
Relocating the UN to Jerusalem? The cyberspace possibilities of United Nations "relocation" acquire considerable relevance following
the recent executive order of Donald Trump banning the travel of citizens of some Muslim countries to the USA and his declared
intention to transfer the US embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem -- a holy city for Muslims. Both measures are recognized as
likely to provoke a mobilization of Arab countries (Pinhas Inbari, Can the Palestinians Mobilize the Arab World on the U.S. Embassy
Issue? Jerusalem Issue Brief, 1 February 2017; Muslim-majority countries show anger at Trump travel ban, The Guardian, 30 January
2017).
Given the nature of the controversy and the associated symbolism, there is then a case for a cyberspace reframing of the proposals for
the relocation of the United Nations HQ to Jerusalem, as indicated above (Eugene Bird, The UN can bring peace to Jerusalem by moving
its headquarters there Mondoweiss, 3 November 2014; Paco Underhill, A Modest Proposal: Move the UN from NY to Jerusalem,
WritersReps; Americans Thrilled as United Nations Headquarters to be Moved to Israel, The MidEast Beast, 2017).
Clearly any such "relocation" in cyberspace terms would be quite distinct from that which might be imagined with respect to physical
architecture and real estate. There are however multiple possibilities to be explored in terms of distributed institutional, communication
and knowledge "architectures" -- irrespective of the physical implications which could well be of a purely symbolic nature.
Time for the UN to be relocated "into the cloud" ? "Virtual reality" may indeed enable unsuspected "virtues" in engaging with the
dynamics of geopolitical "reality".
Two-state negotiation? Reality, realpolitik, surreality, hyperreality and quantum superposition
Following the decisions by the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly (December 2017) regarding the status of Jerusalem,
this section has been transferred to a separate document where the argument has been further developed (Jerusalem as a Symbolic
Singularity: comprehending the dynamics of hyperreality as a challenge to conventional two-state reality, 2017).
Revisiting "death ground" strategy?
As noted above, the argument has been further developed (Jerusalem as a Symbolic Singularity: comprehending the dynamics of
hyperreality as a challenge to conventional two-state reality, 2017).
References
As noted above, the references are presented separately (Jerusalem as a Symbolic Singularity: comprehending the dynamics of
hyperreality as a challenge to conventional two-state reality, 2017).

Move the UN HQ from New York to a much less expensive location

-- to reduce costs for all concerned
The recent UN budget cuts by the US (with more expected) make it even more credible that the UN HQ
should be moved from New York, which is costly for all, including the USA:
US to make at least $285m cut to UN budget after vote on Jerusalem (The Guardian, 26 December
2017)
Taking Credit for U.N. Budget Cut, Trump's Envoy Hints at More to Come (The New York Times, 25
December 2017)
Haley touts reduced UN budget (CNN, 26 December 2017)
Nikki Haley negotiates $285M cut in 'bloated' UN budget (New York Post, 25 December 2017)
Nikki Haley: Reduction in US funds to UN 'Big Step in the Right Direction' (Jerusalem Post, 25
December 2017)
President Trump cuts funding to UN after Israel Vote (Newsweek, 25 December 2017)
It is time for a feasibility study to demonstrate how such a move could quickly cut costs and increase
efficiency
Proposals for the relocation of the UN have been made in relation to proposed withdrawal of the US from the
United Nations:
Patrick Zarcone: Bill introduced to remove US from United Nations (CBS17, 23 January 2017)
Natasha Betrand: A bill has already been introduced in Congress to remove the US from the United
Nations (Business Insider. 23 January 2017)
American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017 (Congress.gov, H.R.193 --115th Congress, 2017-
2018)
US Withdrawal from the United Nations: should the United States withdraw from the United Nations?
(Debate.org)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
For further updates on this site, subscribe here